Talk:Pulp Fiction

References to use

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.

• Desilet, Gregory (2005). "Postmodern 'Noir' Melodrama: Pulp Fiction". Our Faith in Evil: Melodrama and the Effects of Entertainment Violence. McFarland. pp. 299–305. ISBN 078642348X.

FAC withdrawn

My attempt to nominate the article for FAC has been withdrawn, given that I am neither a regular contributor to this article, nor did I consult the editors who were. Well, let me do that now. Do any editors think this article merits a Featured Article, or Good Article nomination? Ilov90210 (talk) 13:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Mistake made in discussion about the weapon used in the Vincent Vega killing

Not just here,but all over the web,people seem to believe that the submachine gun found and used by Butch Coolidge (Bruce Willis) to kill Vincent Vega(John Travolta) while he is on the toilet in Butch's apartment is a Czech Vz61 "Skorpion".Vz.61 This is incorrect. The weapon used looks more like an Ingram MAC 10/11 .Mac 10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.158.143.68 (talk) 23:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

First and foremost, you need to provide a reliable source that refers specifically to the weapon in the film, not just your opinion about what it "looks more like". Secondly, the links above don't work. Cresix (talk) 23:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

They do now. GRAPPLE X 23:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

NY Daily News mentions it. It is also mentioned in a footnote - Pulp_Fiction#cite_note-193 - though the footnote is not sourced. What Tarantino wrote in the script was "What he sees is a small compact Czech M61 submachine gun with a huge silencer on it, lying on his kitchen counter". SilkTork *^{Tea time} 16:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Another, admittedly small, mistake: "the (forgotten) toaster ejects the bread, making a sudden noise which causes Butch to pull the trigger and hit Vincent with a burst of fire, killing him."

It's not bread, but a pair of Pop-Tarts, which Butch takes from the package, unwraps from the foil and places in the toaster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.33.46.98 (talk) 17:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Raped/sodomized

In this text:

Maynard is joined by Zed (Peter Greene); they take Marsellus to another room to rape him, leaving a silent masked figure referred to as "the gimp" to watch a tied-up Butch. Butch breaks loose and knocks out the gimp. He is about to flee when he decides to save Marsellus. As Zed is raping Marsellus on a pommel horse, Butch kills Maynard with a katana. Marsellus retrieves Maynard's shotgun and shoots Zed in the groin. Marsellus informs Butch that they are even with respect to the botched fight fix, so long as he never tells anyone about the rape and departs Los Angeles forever.

It's repetitive to use the word "rape" three times in one paragraph. So I varied the wording and made it more precise by changing it to "As Zed is sodomizing Marsellus on a pommel horse". And it is precise. There is no ambiguity of the act being performed. See the film, e.g. on Youtube. If you dispute that, you must also dispute there was any rape at all. Please have an excellent rationale if you want to revert this again. Barsoomian (talk) 19:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, you convinced me. I won't change "sodomizing". Cresix (talk) 20:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Cool. I noticed someone briefly reverted it on the grounds that "sodomize" doesn't imply "rape". However, as we still say that he was raped twice, that is already clear. Barsoomian (talk) 04:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Infobox gross

According to the infobox templates' documentation, "Insert the worldwide gross revenue accrued by the film. This information is available for most pictures at Box Office Mojo and The-Numbers. If worldwide gross is not available, then indicate which region has grossed that amount." The worldwide gross is sufficient for the infobox. We shouldn't use the term "domestic" anyway as this isn't the American Wikipedia, so what does "domestic" mean? What about the international gross? Why not include that too? You can include a box office summary table in the box office section, like this, if the distinction from 'domestic' and 'international' is important. The infoboxes are already bloated. —Mike Allen 04:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Use the worldwide gross only. There infobox is not the place to try and place undue weight on the U.S. box office for the film, especially since "Domestic" is different depending on where you live. Total gross in the infobox, and let the box office section of the article break it down from there.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Nope.Disagree. North American box office gross is the standard reported figure in the plurality of the Anglophile world that English-language Wikipedia serves. Check several high-quality sources and get back to me on that, if you actually wish to disagree on an evidentiary basis. The infobox "guideline" is what it is, and what it is ain't no good. Anyone who knows cinema journalism knows that to be true. And unless you forge an opposite consensus here, we'll continue to do things better and more informatively on the Pulp Fiction page.—DCGeist (talk) 05:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Consensus has already been established which is how the guideline was born. You alone don't equal consensus. No one is deleting valued information, the information is already in prose. This is the English Wikipedia, you are correct, but not the American Wikipedia, so "domestic" is meaningless. If the infobox guideline is "no good" take it to the talk page, but don't use an article to push your point of view (that others obviously don't share). Thank you. —Mike Allen 05:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

So, basically what you are saying is that somehow the U.S. box office is more important than any other box office gross, as far as the infobox is concerned? Wow, how American-centric you are. Glad to see that this changed to the American Wikipedia from its originally established "ENGLISH" Wikipedia. Regardless, not only does the infobox itself say different, but even WP:MOSFILM states not to use terminology like "domestic". As I said, that means something different to different readers and you cannot say "it's a standard" because the average reader is not a cinema journalist. They're just an average reader. As for even breaking it down by "U.S." and "Worldwide", again you're showing bias to the U.S. market in the infobox. Considering the film premiered in Cannes, which is not in the U.S., there isn't even a presidence for that. Matter of fact, the film premiered all over the world EXCEPT for the U.S. . for about 5 months. As for consensus being "changed" here....well, that depends on how you consider consensus. If it's based on weight of argument, then I would say that that favors those who want to limit it to just WorldWide, because there are guidelines and policies (if you include NPOV, which I do) that say otherwise. You don't really have a significant argument to ignore the rules in this case. If it's based on numerical opinions, then that again favors the removal. So, what exactly are your criteria to "change consensus" on this page?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that the point of having just the worldwide box office gross is to ensure the universality of the overview of the topic. We then break everything down in the article body. While it seems that the American gross is noteworthy here, $100M for an independent film, it helps to have context for that. It seems better to take a global approach with the infobox and to note the American milestone in the lead section. I'm surprised that the lead section lacks any box office information, especially with the milestone being a great highlight to include with context. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

It's amusing how he tells you to "take it to talk page" and then ignore everything editors have to say. As what Erik is saying, the significance should be noted in the lead, not stuffed in the infobox with no context. Why is that so hard to comprehend? —Mike Allen 22:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The infobox should ideally only include information that will be of interest to all English-speaking readers, and there is a substantial portion of readers who the US gross holds no significance for. As other editors point out, national box office breakdowns can be covered in the appropriate sections. The point of incuding the worldwide gross and the budget is to give an indication of the relative financial success, and the US total has no bearing on that. The general view in this discussion is to adhere to the guidelines, and a valid reason why the US gross is of sufficient prominence hasn't been put forward. Betty Logan (talk) 23:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Gold Watch prelude

The info about hiding the gold watch in his ass for two years at a POW camp is incorrect, it is actually five years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.22.58.53 (talk) 01:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The boy's father hid it for five years; the Christopher Walken character, two.138.162.140.55 (talk) 21:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

It says five years, which is incorrect. It's two years for Koons. Someone needs to correct this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.28.174.250 (talk) 19:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. —Flax5 19:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Spelling error

"defended, mystified, male interiority" shouldn't this be "defended, mystified, male inferiority"?

Absolutely not. Read the sentence carefully, in context, and you'll understand what the critic is getting at.—DCGeist (talk) 06:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits by Let Me Eat Cake

Per WP:BRD, it is time for a discussion of the large-scale changes made by Let Me Eat Cake. I have no problem with the edits suggested in the GA Review, but these recent edits went well beyond that. The failure to use descriptive edit summaries made matters worse, because no one had any idea what he was doing or why, or that GAR had anything to do with it. So, time for Let Me Eat Cake to offer an explanation, please. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 20:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, don't be so shocked. The edits weren't that surprising. I was trying to get the article passed so I modeled the lead after the Inglourious Basterds one as that is a GA. It is important talk about its production, box office gross etc. I'm so sorry I offended you. So there's my explanation Dad.

Text of Jules's Bible speech

In the published edition of the Pulp Fiction screenplay, the word is "inequities" rather than "iniquities." I realize that "iniquities" is the correct word in the context of the speech, but the script, as well as Jackson's pronunciation in the film itself, indicate that "inequities" was the word intended. Alexiskai (talk) 12:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

That is interesting. It is kind of difficult to tell what he said in the film, but I am curious why Tarantino changed it in the script. It definitely changes the meaning. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 22:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

It may simply indicate a malapropism. He does deliver the speech two different ways, so it's clear he's not reciting it verbatim each time. And of course, we never know whether the character is meant to have learned the speech from an in-universe version of Ezekiel or from watching Karate Kiba one too many times. :) Alexiskai (talk) 00:28, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Those are all good points. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 01:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Interesting discussion about this text. I suggest an addition to the section on this part of the film. In Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014), the film makes an homage to this piece of Samuel L. Jackson's film history. The tombstone of Jackson's character, Nick Fury, at the film's conclusion includes the epitaph "The path of the righteous man..." and "Ezekiel 25:17" below it. Of course, that is from the part of the quote that is NOT actually found in Ezekiel. noahblammo (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

We would need a reliable source discussing this. Your assumption is that the Captain America film is quoting Pulp Fiction. Tarantino, however, is widely known for quoting/alluding to other works. If Tarantino quoted this from another source, it is entirely possible that Captain America quotes that same source. In any case, discussing it in the article without an independent reliable source is original research. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Stability in this article

It's nice to see that this article has stabilized since a certain individual stopped changing and challenging all posts by all editors. I don't know what became of that individual, but it's nice to see that others can have a voice in this article (and other articles) without it becoming one editor's personal vision of the movie. CurtisJohnson (talk) 01:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Careful friend. That is borderline a Personal Attack. Just a polite pointer. MisterShiney ✉ 07:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Your warning is well taken, MisterShiney.CurtisJohnson (talk) 11:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Include Sight and Sound Ranking

Motion to add Pulp Fiction's ranking on the 2012 Sight and Sound poll, where it was tied for 127th best film of all time. http://explore.bfi.org.uk/sightandsoundpolls/2012/critics/ 72.11.54.147 (talk) 22:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

With respect, is that notable enough? 127th is is not that high.... MisterShiney ✉ 23:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that the article is already blessed with such a wealth of material that the positive value of this data point is outweighed by its overall dilutive effect. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Mexican Standoff

I added back the reference to a Mexican standoff which had been in the article since at least October 2006, removing edit of 09:09, 19 March 2013. Although the situation in the movie might not be a strict Mexican standoff as originally defined, it certainly falls within the general understanding and 'popular use' of Mexican standoff. Pulp Fiction is further cited as an example on the Mexican standoff page. – Mark K Adams (talk) 21:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I endorse your reversions made this evening. In fact, you beat me to it by just a few minutes –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 21:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

So what if the Mexican Standoff article refers to Pulp Fiction? Wikipedia articles are not the source other articles should use. Additionally, the Mexican Standoff article has NO sources of its own. There are two links, but BOTH of them are dead. Cortador (talk) 17:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Cortador for bringing attention to the Mexican standoff article. I've done a little to clean up the links, and put my thoughts toward its improvement on its Talk page. Understand that even without reference to the Mexican standoff Wikipedia article, the Wikipedia community has accepted that the scenario in Pulp Fiction is indeed a Mexican standoff as it has been in place since at least October 2006.

Further, though you are criticizing the lack of references in the Mexican standoff article, you are not offering any to support your view of it. If you can find convincing evidence for the strict definition that you espouse, you may wish to revisit changing the accepted understanding of the term. But before you do, try a Google Image Search. You will see there are many variations which may all be described as a "Mexican standoff." – Mark K Adams (talk) 23:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for giving the Mexican Standoff article some attention. However, "Wikipedia authors say" or "Google image search" are not valid sources. And a many of the images from your link show only two people, which fist no definition of MS I've seen so far. Others make it unclear which sides are allied etc.

But I see where you are going and simply typed "mexican standoff definition" into Google. The very first hit and others, like these three:

http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/mexican-standoff

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/Mexican%20standoff

http://www.wordwebonline.com/en/MEXICANSTANDOFF

describe the MS as a situation where nobody can emerge as the clear winner. This includes the sources of the MS article (The Word Detective), which says: "A “Mexican standoff,” however, is a complete stalemate, and both sides lose by being forced to walk away without a victory."

That's absolutely not the case in Pulp Fiction. Vincent (or Jules, for that matter) can safely shot "Honey Bunny" and thus he and Jules emerge as winners. Sure, they lose in the sense that Jules does not WANT anybody dead, but that's not the point, because Vincent does not seem to have a problem with killing Honey Bunny.

If you disagree here (which you have every right to), please provide sources that fit a different definition of MS. On-line sources are fine, but as I see it, they do not agree that the scene in PF is a MS. — Cortador (talk) 00:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

In the strictest dictionary sense of the definition, you are correct. But "Mexican standoff" is a colloquialism which offers some wiggle room. The point of the use of the term in the Pulp Fiction article is not to nail down the semantics of the term "Mexican standoff", but rather to provide an understanding of the scene for those who are unfamiliar with it. If you Google "mexican standoff pulp fiction" you will see that the online world at large has an understanding that the scene in question is a Mexican standoff. And though a Google search itself can not be used as a cited source, the webpages that result in said search can be. When the internet community overwhelmingly agrees on something, it creates consensus. – Mark K Adams (talk) 01:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me, but what kind of sources is "the internet says"? Look at TV Tropes, for example: They got it wrong and claim that both the hitmen and the robbers are pointing guns at each other, which is not correct.

Anyway, I deleted Pulp Fiction as an example from the MS page, as the article itself precisely states that "neither side has an advantage", which is not the case in PF. "The internet" or not, an article should not contain contradictory information. Feel free to include that MS is also a term for a "vaguely defined situation with more than two people pointing guns at one another" if you have a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.76.113.16 (talk) 08:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Steve Buscemi?

Why isn't Steve Buscemi credited in this article as the 'Buddy Holly' waiter? Soulrefrain (Talk) 17:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you regard the role significant enough? Please expand.
Sincerely,
— Gareth Griffith-Jones|The Welsh Buzzard| — 18:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

It's a very minor role but he is still credited in the film regardless. I can see that the cast section has a short description for each character and Buscemi's role does not warrant one. Inserting a one-liner for him would be out of place. My apologies. Soulrefrain (Talk) 06:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

@ Soulrefrain (Talk), I appreciate your replying. All the best!  –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard|— 07:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Black comedy in lede

I removed black comedy from the first line of the lede. Pulp Fiction is primarily a crime film, and this is the genre that should take precedence in the lede. Black comedy is mentioned further down in the lede, with references, and it is clear that this is a minority view, not held by a wide variety of critics. It should be mentioned in the lede, but I do not think it should be in the first line. I welcome comments from other editors. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

It's primarily an over-the-top parody of pulp magazine stories, and there are also sources if you need them everywhere: Roger Ebert, BBC, LA Times, and About.com... geez, what do you have against black comedy? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you keep your stupid personal comments to yourself?

I stated my reasons clearly above, which you have not refuted. I never said black comedy was not sourced, but that it is not the primary genre. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 00:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you keep your personal attacks to yourself? This is not the first article where you have an issue with black comedy, so I asked an honest question. Black comedy is a vital part of what this movie is, and so it should be reinstated in its original context. And yes, I have refuted your statement, which was "primarily a crime film", by stating that it is "primarily an over-the-top parody", therefore comedy. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 08:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

What personal attack? What I said in another article about a tv show is utterly irrelevant here, so your comment was inappropriate. And, no, you did not refute my argument. This is primarily considered a crime film, and certainly not a comedy of any sort. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

You wouldn't happen to have any sources to support that conclusion, would you? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 13:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

If the answer is no, that conclusion would be pure WP:SYN. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 11:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't think the film is black comedy either, or any kind of comedy for that matter, and was surprised to see the lede say that. Merely having a few funny moments doesn't make a movie a comedy. 24.17.19.29 (talk) 11:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Selected for preservation

The film has been selected for preservation. http://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/movies/library-of-congress-announces-2013-national-film-registry-selections/2013/12/17/eba98bce-6737-11e3-ae56-22de072140a2_story.html?tid=hpModule_ef3e52c4-8691-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394 --Matt723star (talk) 16:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Big Kahuna Burger

Why doesn't Big Kahuna Burger on this page link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Kahuna_Burger? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironman92 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

minor corrections

I'd like to make the following minor changes but the page is protected.

"the (forgotten) toaster ejects the bread" - Pop Tarts aren't bread. I recommend replacing "bread" with "Pop Tarts".

"but the actor nearly lost it after his first audition was overshadowed by Paul Calderón's" - This is ambiguous and potentially confusing. (I was confused.) "Lost it" can mean losing one's temper, especially in the construction "nearly lost it". I recommend replacing "lost it" with "lost the part".

"(One reviewer took it as a "tacit comic statement about the ghettoization of blacks in movies")." - Since the entire sentence is parenthetical, the period should also be inside the parentheses: ... about the ghettoization of blacks in movies".) 24.17.19.29 (talk) 11:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Dance sequence

Any interest in breaking down the dance sequeence into the components. It is described as the twist in the article, but contains elements of other 60's dance moves, including the batusi fingers over the face. See http://www.lefigaro.fr/cinema/2014/09/24/03002-20140924ARTFIG00187--pulp-fiction-la-scene-de-danse-mythique-decryptee.php --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pulp Fiction/GA4. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jburlinson (talk · contribs) 00:57, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll be happy to review this article. I'm sorry there's been over a month's long wait. After a quick once-over, it looks very good and I don't anticipate serious problems. I'll be reading it more carefully and probably making minor changes (e.g. typos, minor wording, grammar, etc.) as I go. If anyone has any problems with these changes, just revert as necessary or otherwise let me know. I'll put all my more substantial comments, if there are any, in one of the standard templates for GA reviewing. I should be finished within 7 days; at least, that's what I'll shoot for. Thanks to everyone who has contributed to this article. Please let me know if you have questions or comments.--Jburlinson (talk) 00:57, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I say please don't continue the review and quick-fail it instead; the article still needs some c/e, there are a few dead links, and the nominator has not contributed significantly to the article. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

You may have a point. On a little closer inspection, it does appear that some of the issues raised in previous GA reviews have not yet been addressed. While I may not personally agree with all of the objections raised by other reviewers, I still feel some duty to respect their judgments and would be disinclined totally to dismiss them. It's not necessary for the nominator to have been a major contributor to the article -- it is preferable, though, that the nominator be familiar enough with the subject matter to be in a position to address concerns. In addition, the nominator and/or other editors should be willing to engage in a good faith conversation about the article and consider addressing issues identified by myself and/or other reviewers. Is that a fair expectation on my part? If so, I'm willing to put in the time to give it more of a review than a quick fail.--Jburlinson (talk) 02:33, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

It looks like almost all the concerns raised in previous reviews from 2012 are still active. In other words, it appears that there has been little to no effort to address long-standing issues. Although there does not seem to be a blazing edit war at the moment, there is still input from other editors that failure to address, or at least discuss, earlier concerns is a significant problem. I have contacted the nominator and received no response. I'll try one more time to see if the nominator is willing to address pre-existing issues and if I get no response within 2 days, I will quick fail the nomination. If any other editor is willing to engage in a good faith effort to resolve the outstanding concerns from previous GA reviews, I will proceed with a more thorough review. There is a lot of good information in the article and it would be a benefit to wikipedia to have it elevated to GA. Please let me know within the next two days if anyone is prepared to work with me on dealing with issues. Thanks.--Jburlinson (talk) 16:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

---

Since I've received no response from the nominator and no other editors have indicated a willingness at this time to address pre-existing concerns, I'm going to quick fail the nomination for now. I'd like to urge any future nominators to address concerns raised in this and previous reviews. This doesn't mean that a nominator has to agree with any or all of the concerns, but it would be good if editors were willing to discuss on the article's talk page. I believe the article is of high quality and would like to see it reach GA status, but that can only happen if the concerns of reviewers are treated seriously. Best wishes to all who've contributed and, if things change, I'll be happy to give a GA review another shot.--Jburlinson (talk) 17:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Harvey Keitel sais his car was an Acura, not a Honda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:77E5:49F0:954C:1117:DB78:8D3 (talk) 23:54, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2015

Under the heading "Amanda Plummer," correct the spelling of the word "agressive" to read "aggressive." Rmmrobinson (talk) 16:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Pulp Fiction "inspired" by 1984's Repo Man.

How so many other films its compared to but the one Pulp Fiction stole shamelessly from is not mentioned?. The Music of Repo Man is imitated,the dialogue too. The gritty LA scene, Even Harry Dean Stantons character is borrowed for Samuel Jackons in Pulp Fiction a decade later. If the theft couldn't be more obvious then think of how Tarantino even stole the "glowing suitcase" from the "glowing trunk" in Repo Man. I guess now,the Pulp Fiction people will want the truth deleted.